This article shares my experience using the versatile Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S lens. I won’t discuss performance in numerical terms, or detail its dimensions and physical characteristics. You can find that helpful information in the original Photography Life review (here). Instead, I’ll focus on how and why this lens has become essential to my photography after nearly three years of usage.
Table of Contents
Focal Length
The first and most important feature, and my motivation for purchasing the lens in the first place, is its versatility in focal length. Switching from 100mm to 400mm focal length instantly helps to compose very different images, from Animalscapes (see my recent article here) to wildlife portraits. This flexibility becomes invaluable in adverse weather or dusty environments, allowing you to change compositions without swapping lenses.
When paired with the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 lens, another remarkable lens I will discuss in a future article, this combination of focal lengths forms a versatile kit for nature photography. I once read an interview with a well-known wildlife photographer who advised “just” investing in a 24-105mm or 24-120mm lens along with a 100-400mm lens instead of saving for a longer lens. They argued that the money might be better spent on trips to wildlife-rich locations.
While I find that perspective a bit extreme, and I’m a pretty happy owner of a marvelous 600mm f/4 lens, I can’t deny that many of my photos fall within the 24 to 400mm range. Having this essential range well-covered allows me to concentrate on photography without any fear of equipment-related errors, and the photos I’ve taken with this 100-400mm are no slouch compared to those I take with the 600mm f/4.
But back to the Z 100-400mm lens, I’ve found that to use it effectively, it’s beneficial to take a moment to “see” and “imagine” potential images in the scene around me before peering through the viewfinder. This practice helps me avoid getting lost in the details and preserves my broader vision of the scene.
Maybe this is related to my love for shooting Animalscapes, but it was an epiphany when I realized this small truth: You can find better and more diverse compositions by looking with your eyes only.
Optical Qualities
The autofocus on the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is fast and precise. The maximum aperture is a little narrow at 400mm, which makes low-light photography a little harder (especially compared to an exotic 400mm f/2.8 but even compared to a 400mm f/4.5). But in any daylight hours, I have never had trouble capturing even the fastest subjects with this lens. In these everyday conditions, it focuses as quickly as exotic primes.
Additionally, the vibration reduction on this lens is highly effective. It works especially well in tandem with the camera’s in-body image stabilization. But all this alone would not be enough if the other optical quality was lacking. The Nikkor 100-400mm does not disappoint here; it is very sharp at all focal lengths, giving up a little only at 300-400mm, and nothing that harms the result.
Although not at the level of faster and brighter lenses, the bokeh is all right, too. In this regard, it’s important to remember that the bokeh is influenced more by the relative distances between the photographer, subject, and background than by your choice of aperture. Therefore, it is the photographer who, by choosing the best shooting point, can make the out-of-focus background creamier.
However, a 70-200mm f/2.8 in challenging shooting situations can produce better out-of-focus rendition. But it stops at 200mm… and if you attach a teleconverter, you get worse results than what you could achieve with the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, both in sharpness and bokeh.
Where image quality is concerned, I also find the 100-400mm plenty sharp enough even for landscape photography. In fact I quite like this longer perspective on natural landscapes. I enjoy the long focal length both to magnify detail and to compress the scene.
Other Features
One of the main reasons why the 100-400mm has become my go-to lens is that it is very durable and professional, and it can withstand extensive abuse without any issues. As you’ve seen from my photos, I am often shooting in very cold, snowy, or misty environments and have had gear fail on me in the past. The Z 100-400mm feels confident and reassuring in comparison.
This lens is full of surprises and has a hidden feature: it can focus very closely, making it suitable for close-up photography, especially for subjects that need a bit more distance than a 105mm macro lens provides. While it may not match the exceptional performance of the Nikon Z MC 105mm f/2.8 Macro at close distances, it comes very close and is worth trying out!
I mentioned that this lens has earned a permanent spot in my backpack. I always take it on my mountain trips, either in a neoprene tube or mounted on my Nikon Z9 and stored in a LensCoat BodyBag Pro Sport. While “moving and shooting,” I often attach the lens to my backpack using a BlackRapid Backpack Breathe camera strap or a Peak Design Camera Clip. When traveling, it’s always with me as a companion to my 600mm f/4 lens.
Conclusion
Do I think this lens is perfect? While no lens can be considered perfect, the 100-400mm lens comes very close to being the ideal wide-range telephoto zoom. It is probably Nikon’s best supertelephoto zoom, significantly surpassing the previous 80-400mm AF-S VR. (I don’t count the spectacular 120-300mm f/2.8 and 180-400mm f/4, which are in a different league for weight, luminosity, and price).
In my experience and to my tastes, its usefulness outperforms the newer Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR. My comparison isn’t about different performance levels, but rather about the focal lengths. The ability to zoom out to 100mm means that the 100-400mm is a different kind of lens than the 180-600mm. Even though some wildlife photographers may struggle to choose between them, I do not view these two lenses as overlapping. To me, there is only one answer if you want to take both “wide” wildlife shots and portraits, and it’s the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6.
I hope you found this essay about the value of the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S lens in my wildlife photography enjoyable. Even though I’m a Nikon shooter and love the Z 100-400mm specifically, I am sure that I would be just as happy with Sony’s 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 if I shot with Sony, and Canon’s 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 if I shot with Canon. As someone who likes to photograph large mammals, this type of lens suits my style of wildlife photography perfectly, and it has become my most essential lens!
If you have any questions or feedback, please don’t hesitate to leave them in the comments section below.
I own the 80-400 and is now about to upgrade to the 100-400. for me this lens over the past 10 yrs have been the most used lens other than my 300 f2.8 that I have always used with the 1.4 TC. Overlap? yes but the 300 plays a complete different role, nothing beats f2.8 or f4 on a telephoto prime. It is a specialist lens where the 100-400 is all about flexibility and creativity. The modern obsession with reach and wanting a 800 f8 zoom is for lunch time bird photography :-). Jokes aside, I have a sigma 150-600 C for small birds on a D500, low cost fun combination. For my trips to the many African nature reserves chasing images, chasing the African wildlife, nothing beets the 80-400/100-400 range.
I have had my 100-400 for about 10 months now, and it has not let me down once. No complaints at all, my copy is super sharp, focusses fast, and is light weight. I also find that with the 1.4 TC its still sharp enough and gives the extra reach for bird shots. Get this lens if you want light weight and portable with the image quality, and the 1.4 TC if you need the range with that.
People really focus on exotic lenses, but for a lot of us the 24-120 and 100-400 combo fits all of our needs handily. The 100-400 is a great portrait rig, and if you are doing photojournalism or anything where you need to pull things into view with a zoom, 100-400 is a really useful range. Particularly because not many lenses gets you from 100-400 without a huge degradation of performance at one of the ends.
What do I know, I just woke up to the fact that the 85 1.4G renders REALLY WELL on a Z50/Z50ii.
Massimo,
Your experiences and comments align very well with my own feelings about this lens…especially the flexibility offered by the combo of the 24-120 and the 100-400. I can walk out the door with those two lenses and a Z8 or Z9 and be ready for just about anything…and not be wishing I’d brought a “better” lens. Toss a prime or two into the bag, UWA, Macro or fast aperture and you’ve got 98% covered short of super tele.
When I was first switching over to MLC from a D850 and D500, I kept a 500pf that I then owned and while it was an ok complement to the 100-400, I found myself wanting more reach and faster aperture than provided with a TC1.4 on either the 500 or 100-400, so ordered an 800pf.
Fortunately for me, the 800pf’s were backordered forever and before mine shipped, the 600pf was announced and I immediately cancelled the 800pf order and ordered the 600pf. When my 600pf arrived, I immediately sold the 500pf and I find that the 600pf is, to me, the ideal complement to the 100-400. Much more manageable size and far more use cases for what I shoot.
For the first time in just about forever, there are really no major lens purchases in my future…though a PZ lens or two for video my get my attention! :)
Cheers!
Hi Tom, I’m glad you liked the article.
Your experience mirrors mine, too. I bought the lightweight 600PF for strenuous mountain hikes; it is beautiful, lightweight, and VERY sharp.
Can’t disagree about the 600/f6.3. But after having bought a Z8 and 100-400, the kitty is empty. So sticking with the 500/5.6 and a 1.4 TC.
The pictures are largely the same
95% of my photography over the last 2 years has been with this lens, I love it.
Great article and photos!
I bought this lens myself this summer for photographing wildlife (puffins and whales) in Iceland. Paired with my Z8 it´s a beast of a lens. Never let me down, worked perfectly well. First I was tempted to go with the Z 70-200 as an upgrade of my old Tamron, but decided to get a longer lens is more useful.
Couldn´t be happier with this one!
Helps if you live somewhere that has large mammals ;)
Here in the U.K., 400mm (on a 24mp 35mm sensor) is too short.
I totally agree with you ! I had F mount 200-500 and wanted to go with a z lens. First I bought 180-600 but didn’t use it very often. It didn’t suit my actual needs, and went for 100-400 ! I hike a lot, a weight is an issue as for the length in a backpack. In the future I may consider 600pf of f500 f5.6 for wildlife needs.
Thank you, Alexander.
600PF is a pretty good lens; it is undoubtedly helpful when you need a longer lens!
Alexander,
The 500pf is an outstanding lens at its original price, but considering what you can pick up a good used one for nowadays, they’re an absolute steal. That said, if the 600pf isn’t too much of a financial stretch, I’d go that route…which, in fact, I did do. As far as IQ, I’d say they’re neck and neck if you can fill a frame to the same extent, but you don’t have the advantage of the IBIS/VR sync and while the 500pf focuses fairly fast, it’s audibly noisy and intrusive for video if not using an external mic.
Kinda pains me to see that $800 discount Nikon has been offering, but I can rationalize part of it in that I got about $500 more for my 500pf than if I were selling it now. :)
I recall at least one report stating that the 70-200 + 2x TC is about the same in sharpness as the 100-400 (Brad Hill: 25 March 2022: Nikkor 100-400mm f4.5-5.6S or 70-200mm f2.8S Plus Teleconverters?). I am surprised you drew a different conclusion.
Did you read the comparison article between these two options on here (it is accessible via the 100-400 review)?
no, I only just now found the comparison by googling. Thanks for pointing it out